On Thursday, February 5, the Michigan state Senate Elections and Government Reform Committee voted favorably on SB 44. The bill would move the Great Lakes state presidential primary from the fourth Tuesday in February to the third Tuesday in March; back into compliance with national party rules.
After testimony from the Michigan Republican Party and the secretary of states office, the committee vote broke along party lines. The committee's four Republicans voted to send the bill to the floor for consideration while the lone Democrat voted against the measure. According to the Detroit News, the move by Senator Morris Hood (D-3rd, Dearborn) was less about opposition to the bill than it was about Michigan Democrats not being consulted on the change of primary dates.
Michigan Republicans control both chambers of the legislature and the governor's mansion and can make the move without Democrats in the state. That was true last December as well when a bill with the same goal passed the state Senate before dying in the state House during the lame duck session. That may have been more of a timing issue than a lack of support for that bill.
The Michigan Republican Party endorsed the move to March 15 last fall.
--
UPDATE (2/12/15): Bill passes Senate
UPDATE (2/18/15): House passes amended version
UPDATE (2/19/15): Senate concurs with House changes
UPDATE (2/20/15): Governor signs bill (changes primary date to March 8, 2016)
--
Hat tip to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for the heads up.
Recent Posts:
2016 Utah Presidential Primary Miscellany
North Carolina Counties Balk at New 2016 Presidential Primary
Mississippi Senate Bill to Bump Presidential Primary Up Moves Forward
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Thursday, February 5, 2015
2016 Utah Presidential Primary Miscellany
There are a few things floating around related to the Utah presidential primary situation that deserve some attention, but do not really constitute stand-alone posts.
--
FHQ thought Utah state Rep. Jon Cox (R-58th, Ephraim) had a nice piece up over at Utah Policy the other day.1 Among other things he discussed:
FHQ has seen it said in a couple of places since all these Utah stories went to press that the origin of the February presidential primary in the state dates to 2013 and a bill introduced by Rep. Kraig Powell (R-54th, Heber City). That is not the case.
The Western States Presidential Primary came about because of legislation passed during the Utah legislature's 1999 session. Again, it was part of an effort spearheaded by Governor Mike Leavitt to encourage a regional primary among some of the non-coastal western states. The date at first was not in February though. Initially, the date of the Western States Presidential Primary was set for the first Friday after the first Monday in March. Yes, a Friday primary. And in 2000, Utah, Colorado and Wyoming Republicans held delegate selection events on that Friday, March 10.
After Utah Democrats held a party-run presidential primary in then-compliant February for the 2004 cycle, the Utah legislature shifted the date of the Western States Presidential Primary up to the first Tuesday in February. That legislation passed in 2006 and was in effect for the 2008 cycle. And the Western States Presidential Primary has remained in that spot ever since.
Of course, for the 2012 cycle, the Utah legislature did not appropriate funds for the February primary, meaning that there was no February election option. The state party voted to utilize the June primary for state and local offices in June 2011 and legislature later accommodated the party by passing a bill that allowed the party to do just that.
The 2013 action by Rep. Powell and the Utah state legislature was to clarify this set up; to provide a contingency that funding was necessary for the February primary to proceed, and if money was not appropriated, the June primary was an option (as called for in the 2011 change).
The February Utah presidential primary, then, dates back to 2006 legislation, not 2013.
--
1 Yes, that is the same Jon Cox who introduced the bill to move the Utah presidential primary ahead of Iowa last year.
Recent Posts:
North Carolina Counties Balk at New 2016 Presidential Primary
Mississippi Senate Bill to Bump Presidential Primary Up Moves Forward
Vermont Bill Would Add Rank Choice Voting to Presidential Primary Ballots for Military/Overseas Voters
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
--
FHQ thought Utah state Rep. Jon Cox (R-58th, Ephraim) had a nice piece up over at Utah Policy the other day.1 Among other things he discussed:
- The chair of the Republican Party in Utah did not know that the two dates/options for the 2016 presidential primary in the Beehive state were not compliant with the RNC rules. This sort of thing always amazes me until I remember not everyone is as obsessive about this stuff as I am. Still, it is noteworthy. But in reality, the June primary was compliant in 2012, and FHQ is sure the thinking/assumption in Utah was that it would be in 2016 as well. It is not.
- Rep. Cox does not speak for the Utah state legislature nor the Utah state government, but it really is fascinating when there are intra-party divisions that occur with a state government on one side and the state party on the other. In the Utah case, both sides are Republican. It was Republican division in Idaho a few years ago as well. There is some element of support for maintaining a primary system within the state government, but the state party backs the caucuses/convention system. That speaks to some divergence between elected officials in the state legislature and those in charge within the state party. It is not exactly the same of situation as that hypothesized about in the Meinke et al. research, but there are parallels. In Meinke, the hypothesis was that states where the the powers that be within the state party are ideologically different from the rank-and-file voters of their party would be more likely to see the state party attempt to close off the delegate selection process (i.e.: moving to caucuses). When the space between the party and voters was great, the likelihood of a closed process or caucuses was much greater. The party wants to exert more control over the nomination process. In Utah, though, it is the state government and not the voters at odds with the state party. But the state party backs a closed caucuses/convention process.
FHQ has seen it said in a couple of places since all these Utah stories went to press that the origin of the February presidential primary in the state dates to 2013 and a bill introduced by Rep. Kraig Powell (R-54th, Heber City). That is not the case.
The Western States Presidential Primary came about because of legislation passed during the Utah legislature's 1999 session. Again, it was part of an effort spearheaded by Governor Mike Leavitt to encourage a regional primary among some of the non-coastal western states. The date at first was not in February though. Initially, the date of the Western States Presidential Primary was set for the first Friday after the first Monday in March. Yes, a Friday primary. And in 2000, Utah, Colorado and Wyoming Republicans held delegate selection events on that Friday, March 10.
After Utah Democrats held a party-run presidential primary in then-compliant February for the 2004 cycle, the Utah legislature shifted the date of the Western States Presidential Primary up to the first Tuesday in February. That legislation passed in 2006 and was in effect for the 2008 cycle. And the Western States Presidential Primary has remained in that spot ever since.
Of course, for the 2012 cycle, the Utah legislature did not appropriate funds for the February primary, meaning that there was no February election option. The state party voted to utilize the June primary for state and local offices in June 2011 and legislature later accommodated the party by passing a bill that allowed the party to do just that.
The 2013 action by Rep. Powell and the Utah state legislature was to clarify this set up; to provide a contingency that funding was necessary for the February primary to proceed, and if money was not appropriated, the June primary was an option (as called for in the 2011 change).
The February Utah presidential primary, then, dates back to 2006 legislation, not 2013.
--
1 Yes, that is the same Jon Cox who introduced the bill to move the Utah presidential primary ahead of Iowa last year.
Recent Posts:
North Carolina Counties Balk at New 2016 Presidential Primary
Mississippi Senate Bill to Bump Presidential Primary Up Moves Forward
Vermont Bill Would Add Rank Choice Voting to Presidential Primary Ballots for Military/Overseas Voters
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
North Carolina Counties Balk at New 2016 Presidential Primary
The county Boards of Elections in Burke County and Scotland County in North Carolina have raised some concerns about the administration of the Tarheel state's new presidential primary in 2016.
Dell Parker, the Scotland County Board of Elections director, has indicated that the budget for elections in 2015-2016 only accounts for two elections, not three or four (if there is a separate presidential primary and runoff in addition to the May primary and general elections). That is something that will have to be changed/augmented at the county level.1
Further west in Burke County, the $67000 price tag for conducting the separate presidential primary and the logistics of preparing for an early primary on the heels of municipal elections in November 2015 has given Board of Elections members there pause.
--
None of this is particularly revelatory. In fact, it is a typical reaction from the county units of Boards of Elections on the front lines actually conducting elections. It also does not mean that the North Carolina primary has to move or that this will exert any pressure on state legislators who would make that decision.
However, this is all part of what has separated states from each other in the post-reform era. In terms the Economist used four years ago, there are thrusters and laggards. The latter group tends to include states like North Carolina that have traditionally held consolidated primaries that are usually at the end of the presidential primary calendar. There may be a willingness in states like that to move to earlier dates, but there are transaction costs associated with such a move. Those costs are clearer in states that opt to separate the presidential primary, freeing that election up to be more mobile in the future. That sort of future freedom requires states and lower political units to fund that separate election; a high hurdle given the example of how some counties in North Carolina are reacting as 2016 approaches.
Those costs, however, have separated the states like North Carolina from the traditionally more mobile states -- early adopters of separate primaries -- like Florida, Georgia and a number of northeastern states.2 This is a substantively and statistically significant variable in much of the research FHQ has done on the matter.
Again, counties crying foul about this sort of thing is not new. Furthermore, it is unlikely to exert any real pressure in Raleigh to change the date of the North Carolina primary. And even if it does, those concerns are likely to take a backseat to pressure from the Republican National Committee to change the date of the primary.
--
1 Scotland County Board of Elections chair, Hal Culberson, states in that article:
North Carolina held separate presidential primaries in both 1976 -- when they held a March presidential primary and August primary for other offices -- and 1988 -- when there was a March presidential primary and a May primary for state and local offices.
2 Those states tended to have fall primaries for state and local offices that were valued, but not suited for a presidential nomination process that wrapped up with a summer convention. In other words, those states wanted to keep their fall primaries, and had to create an alternative election to play the presidential nomination game.
Recent Posts:
Mississippi Senate Bill to Bump Presidential Primary Up Moves Forward
Vermont Bill Would Add Rank Choice Voting to Presidential Primary Ballots for Military/Overseas Voters
North Carolina: 2016's Rogue State?
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Dell Parker, the Scotland County Board of Elections director, has indicated that the budget for elections in 2015-2016 only accounts for two elections, not three or four (if there is a separate presidential primary and runoff in addition to the May primary and general elections). That is something that will have to be changed/augmented at the county level.1
Further west in Burke County, the $67000 price tag for conducting the separate presidential primary and the logistics of preparing for an early primary on the heels of municipal elections in November 2015 has given Board of Elections members there pause.
--
None of this is particularly revelatory. In fact, it is a typical reaction from the county units of Boards of Elections on the front lines actually conducting elections. It also does not mean that the North Carolina primary has to move or that this will exert any pressure on state legislators who would make that decision.
However, this is all part of what has separated states from each other in the post-reform era. In terms the Economist used four years ago, there are thrusters and laggards. The latter group tends to include states like North Carolina that have traditionally held consolidated primaries that are usually at the end of the presidential primary calendar. There may be a willingness in states like that to move to earlier dates, but there are transaction costs associated with such a move. Those costs are clearer in states that opt to separate the presidential primary, freeing that election up to be more mobile in the future. That sort of future freedom requires states and lower political units to fund that separate election; a high hurdle given the example of how some counties in North Carolina are reacting as 2016 approaches.
Those costs, however, have separated the states like North Carolina from the traditionally more mobile states -- early adopters of separate primaries -- like Florida, Georgia and a number of northeastern states.2 This is a substantively and statistically significant variable in much of the research FHQ has done on the matter.
Again, counties crying foul about this sort of thing is not new. Furthermore, it is unlikely to exert any real pressure in Raleigh to change the date of the North Carolina primary. And even if it does, those concerns are likely to take a backseat to pressure from the Republican National Committee to change the date of the primary.
--
1 Scotland County Board of Elections chair, Hal Culberson, states in that article:
"It will be the first time ever we’ve had a presidential-only primary,’’ said Hal Culberson, the elections board chairman, at the board’s Monday meeting. “We’ve never had an election primary just for the U.S. presidential election."False.
North Carolina held separate presidential primaries in both 1976 -- when they held a March presidential primary and August primary for other offices -- and 1988 -- when there was a March presidential primary and a May primary for state and local offices.
2 Those states tended to have fall primaries for state and local offices that were valued, but not suited for a presidential nomination process that wrapped up with a summer convention. In other words, those states wanted to keep their fall primaries, and had to create an alternative election to play the presidential nomination game.
Recent Posts:
Mississippi Senate Bill to Bump Presidential Primary Up Moves Forward
Vermont Bill Would Add Rank Choice Voting to Presidential Primary Ballots for Military/Overseas Voters
North Carolina: 2016's Rogue State?
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Mississippi Senate Bill to Bump Presidential Primary Up Moves Forward
The Rules Committee in the Mississippi state Senate has given the green light to SB 2531. The legislation would move the presidential primary in the Magnolia state up a week to March 1, the target date of the proposed SEC primary in 2016.
The Senate committee, like its House counterpart last week, passed off on the bill, recommending it as "Do Pass".
With a short legislative session -- due to expire in early April -- these two pieces of legislation seem to be on something of a fast track through the legislature. Then again, as FHQ has pointed out, there are indications that there is some consensus behind the move up to March 1.
--
UPDATE (2/6/15):
The Rules Committee actually passed a substitute bill to the one introduced. The change is minor but significant for 2020. The introduced legislation calls for the move to the first Tuesday in March to become effective on July 1, 2015. And though there seems to be a typo, the committee substitute adds a sunset provision; that the date change will expire on June 30, 2016. [Yes, it says June 30, 2015, but that could not be right. The change would be repealed before it took effect.] That would mean that after a supposed first Tuesday in March primary in 2016, that the Mississippi primary would revert to the second Tuesday in March date in the next subsequent cycle.
...unless another change is made.
--
Update (2/11/15): House and Senate bills pass
Update (3/3/15): House bill dies in committee, Senate bill passes committee
UPDATE (3/11/15): Amended Senate bill passes state House
Recent Posts:
Vermont Bill Would Add Rank Choice Voting to Presidential Primary Ballots for Military/Overseas Voters
North Carolina: 2016's Rogue State?
Utah Again Linked to Possible Western Regional Primary
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
The Senate committee, like its House counterpart last week, passed off on the bill, recommending it as "Do Pass".
With a short legislative session -- due to expire in early April -- these two pieces of legislation seem to be on something of a fast track through the legislature. Then again, as FHQ has pointed out, there are indications that there is some consensus behind the move up to March 1.
--
UPDATE (2/6/15):
The Rules Committee actually passed a substitute bill to the one introduced. The change is minor but significant for 2020. The introduced legislation calls for the move to the first Tuesday in March to become effective on July 1, 2015. And though there seems to be a typo, the committee substitute adds a sunset provision; that the date change will expire on June 30, 2016. [Yes, it says June 30, 2015, but that could not be right. The change would be repealed before it took effect.] That would mean that after a supposed first Tuesday in March primary in 2016, that the Mississippi primary would revert to the second Tuesday in March date in the next subsequent cycle.
...unless another change is made.
--
Update (2/11/15): House and Senate bills pass
Update (3/3/15): House bill dies in committee, Senate bill passes committee
UPDATE (3/11/15): Amended Senate bill passes state House
Recent Posts:
Vermont Bill Would Add Rank Choice Voting to Presidential Primary Ballots for Military/Overseas Voters
North Carolina: 2016's Rogue State?
Utah Again Linked to Possible Western Regional Primary
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Tuesday, February 3, 2015
Vermont Bill Would Add Rank Choice Voting to Presidential Primary Ballots for Military/Overseas Voters
Legislation has been introduced in Vermont to allow military personnel and other overseas voters to utilize rank choice voting in presidential primaries.
Vermont has in-person absentee voting in the 45 days before an election, but the proposal in H 115 would allow those voters overseas and/or in the military to cast a rank choice vote in a presidential primary. The secretary of state in Vermont would prepare the ballot as usual, but military/overseas voters would rank all of the candidates based on preference instead of choosing just one from the pool of candidates. If the most preferred candidate has dropped out/withdrawn from the race by the time of the Vermont primary on March 1, then the highest choice among the remaining active candidates would receive the vote.
For example, if voter X overseas has a rank ordering on his or her ballot of George Pataki followed by Jeb Bush (then the rest), and Pataki has withdrawn, then Bush receives the vote.
This is a clever way of avoiding a wasted vote in a situation where ballots have to go out to military personnel well in advance of primary election day when the field of candidates is still in flux.
NOTE: There is also similar draft legislation in Massachusetts (HD 2394). The Bay state also has a March 1 primary.
Recent Posts:
North Carolina: 2016's Rogue State?
Utah Again Linked to Possible Western Regional Primary
SEC Primary Bill Finds Early Support in Mississippi House Committee
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Vermont has in-person absentee voting in the 45 days before an election, but the proposal in H 115 would allow those voters overseas and/or in the military to cast a rank choice vote in a presidential primary. The secretary of state in Vermont would prepare the ballot as usual, but military/overseas voters would rank all of the candidates based on preference instead of choosing just one from the pool of candidates. If the most preferred candidate has dropped out/withdrawn from the race by the time of the Vermont primary on March 1, then the highest choice among the remaining active candidates would receive the vote.
For example, if voter X overseas has a rank ordering on his or her ballot of George Pataki followed by Jeb Bush (then the rest), and Pataki has withdrawn, then Bush receives the vote.
This is a clever way of avoiding a wasted vote in a situation where ballots have to go out to military personnel well in advance of primary election day when the field of candidates is still in flux.
NOTE: There is also similar draft legislation in Massachusetts (HD 2394). The Bay state also has a March 1 primary.
Recent Posts:
North Carolina: 2016's Rogue State?
Utah Again Linked to Possible Western Regional Primary
SEC Primary Bill Finds Early Support in Mississippi House Committee
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Monday, February 2, 2015
North Carolina: 2016's Rogue State?
After ceremonially opening the 2015 session almost three weeks ago, the North Carolina General Assembly set about actually beginning its legislative work for the year last week. That ends up being consequential for the 2016 presidential primary calendar in that if primary season started today, North Carolina would be non-compliant with the delegate selection rules governing both the Democratic and Republican nominations processes next year.
To quickly recap, the General Assembly passed elections legislation during the summer session in 2013 that would, among other things, create a separate presidential primary in the Tar Heel state and tether it to the South Carolina presidential primary. That provision is triggered if the South Carolina primary is scheduled for a point on the calendar before March 15. And given that the Palmetto state is one of the four carve-out states with a February calendar position already reserved for it by the national parties, that would mean the North Carolina presidential primary would be drawn into February as well.
Complicating matters further, the North Carolina law calls for the presidential primary to be held the Tuesday after the South Carolina contest. With Saturday primaries the norm in South Carolina, that would position North Carolina just three days after South Carolina. It is not codified in law, but custom, not to mention practice, has shown that decision makers in South Carolina prefer a larger buffer between the South Carolina primary and the next earliest southern contest than three days. This practice mimics the law in New Hampshire requiring the Granite state presidential primary be seven days before the next earliest "similar contest". But again, the South Carolina practice is more custom or norm than law.
All that places North and South Carolina at something of an impasse. South Carolina is early but cannot shake North Carolina off by moving to an even earlier point on the calendar. If South Carolina moves, North Carolina moves with it.
The only thing in place to come to the aid of South Carolina is the enforcement of the national parties' delegate selection rules by the national parties themselves. By holding a primary before the first Tuesday in March, North Carolina would open itself up to incurring penalties from both parties. The DNC has a 50% penalty in place for timing/calendar violations, but provides the Democratic Rules and Bylaws Committee with the discretion to increase that penalty, as was the case with Florida and Michigan in 2008 (Rule 20.C.1.a). Additionally, the party also penalizes candidates who campaign in any rogue state in the lead up to the contest. Candidates would lose any and all pledged delegates allocated to them based on the results of the primary (Rule 20.C.1.b).
But the Democratic nomination and its attendant rules may not matter all that much if party support, polls and money raised (by super PACs) say anything about where former Secretary of State Clinton stands in the race. If the race is not all that competitive, then the rules are far less consequential.
Things are less clear on the Republican side which raises the specter of the delegate selection rules influencing the path in which the eventual nominee, if not frontrunner, takes to the nomination. The Democratic rules seem to back South Carolina up and so too do the Republican rules. For starters, South Carolina and the other three carve-out states are allowed by the RNC rules to hold contests as early as a month before the next earliest contest (Rule 16(c)(1)). That is an effective buffer for the four carve-out states in most cases. However, in an instance where the another state has its primary tethered to one of the carve-outs, it provides Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina with little cover. If North Carolina remains anchored to the South Carolina primary, then neither South Carolina nor the other carve-outs can effectively escape the North Carolina primary.
The RNC rules, however, protect the carve-out states and the ideal -- from the party's perspective -- calendar through other means. Like the Democrats, the Republican National Committee also penalizes states that conduct primaries or caucuses before the first Tuesday in March. Unlike the Democrats and unlike the RNC from 2012, the 2016 version sets a more severe timing penalty than simply reducing a state's delegation by half. That 50% penalty was the same one used and enforced in both 2008 and 2012 by the Republican National Committee. Yet, with Florida and Michigan breaking the calendar rules in both 2008 and 2012 and Arizona joining in 2012, the penalty was not effective at deterring all states from those sorts of violations.
The answer for the RNC for 2016 has come in the form of the newly installed super penalty. Instead of a flat 50% penalty, the RNC has opted to reduce violating states' delegations to either 9 or 12 delegates (depending on size) (Rule 17(a)). More than three-quarters of states and territories would face a penalty of 60% or more. The large a state's delegation, the larger the penalty would be.
For a state like North Carolina -- a state that increased the size of its Republican delegation by nearly 20 delegates for 20161 -- to be reduced to 12 delegates would translate to a more than 80% penalty. That is a significantly scaled back delegation that would reshape how candidates campaign in the state. And given that North Carolina allocates its delegates proportionally to candidates based on the statewide vote, such a small delegation may not change the way the candidates approach North Carolina as much as affect decisions over whether to bother with campaigning for a proportional share of 12 delegates.2
Folks in North Carolina are just waking up to the fact that the Tar Heel state will hold an early primary next year. Some are even speculating about what kind of player North Carolina will be in the presidential nomination process. On the county level, there is some concern emerging over the logistics of a February presidential primary.
But very few here in the Tar Heel state are talking about how North Carolina will be penalized by the national party rules if the presidential primary law remains unchanged and the impact that will have on the primary and campaigns' decisions to spend money in a multi-market state for just 12 delegates.
As the North Carolina General Assembly gets down to and continues its work, it is worth watching whether legislators address the primary issue. They are aware of the potential problem. North Carolina Republican National Committeeman, David Lewis, is in the North Carolina House of Representatives. Furthermore, the RNC has expressed confidence to FHQ that this matter would be resolved.
We shall see. The RNC has been good about bringing states in line during the 2016 cycle so far (see Arizona and Florida). But North Carolina could be a real threat to the primary calendar order in 2016. on the one hand, the carve-out states may scramble to schedule around North Carolina and run the risk of breaking the timing rules themselves. On the other hand, due to the tethering of the primary law, the four carve-out states cannot really steer clear of North Carolina. That may mean that the early states and the national parties will lean on the candidates to avoid the Tar Heel state. It could also mean that if the primary law cannot get changed in 2015 during a regular session that ends in July that the state parties will have to save the North Carolina delegate allocation process from itself by switching to later and compliant caucuses to avoid penalty.
That is a few speculative steps down the road though. North Carolina is in a provocative position on the 2016 primary calendar and step one to altering that runs through the state legislature.
Well, that and perhaps people here realizing it is a problem.
--
1 By maintaining a Republican-controlled legislature and winning a second US Senate seat, the governor's mansion and voting for Romney in 2012, North Carolina gained bonus delegates over its Republican share in 2012 (see RNC Rule 14(a)(5-7)). North Carolina's percentage gain in share of delegates from 2012 to 2016 is just shy of 30%.
2 It would actually be a proportionate share of just nine delegates. The three automatic delegates -- the state party chair, the national committeeman and the national committeewoman -- have been unbound and thus their allocation is not dependent upon the results of the primary.
Recent Posts:
Utah Again Linked to Possible Western Regional Primary
SEC Primary Bill Finds Early Support in Mississippi House Committee
Utah Republicans Leaning Toward 2016 Caucuses Over Primary
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
To quickly recap, the General Assembly passed elections legislation during the summer session in 2013 that would, among other things, create a separate presidential primary in the Tar Heel state and tether it to the South Carolina presidential primary. That provision is triggered if the South Carolina primary is scheduled for a point on the calendar before March 15. And given that the Palmetto state is one of the four carve-out states with a February calendar position already reserved for it by the national parties, that would mean the North Carolina presidential primary would be drawn into February as well.
Complicating matters further, the North Carolina law calls for the presidential primary to be held the Tuesday after the South Carolina contest. With Saturday primaries the norm in South Carolina, that would position North Carolina just three days after South Carolina. It is not codified in law, but custom, not to mention practice, has shown that decision makers in South Carolina prefer a larger buffer between the South Carolina primary and the next earliest southern contest than three days. This practice mimics the law in New Hampshire requiring the Granite state presidential primary be seven days before the next earliest "similar contest". But again, the South Carolina practice is more custom or norm than law.
All that places North and South Carolina at something of an impasse. South Carolina is early but cannot shake North Carolina off by moving to an even earlier point on the calendar. If South Carolina moves, North Carolina moves with it.
The only thing in place to come to the aid of South Carolina is the enforcement of the national parties' delegate selection rules by the national parties themselves. By holding a primary before the first Tuesday in March, North Carolina would open itself up to incurring penalties from both parties. The DNC has a 50% penalty in place for timing/calendar violations, but provides the Democratic Rules and Bylaws Committee with the discretion to increase that penalty, as was the case with Florida and Michigan in 2008 (Rule 20.C.1.a). Additionally, the party also penalizes candidates who campaign in any rogue state in the lead up to the contest. Candidates would lose any and all pledged delegates allocated to them based on the results of the primary (Rule 20.C.1.b).
But the Democratic nomination and its attendant rules may not matter all that much if party support, polls and money raised (by super PACs) say anything about where former Secretary of State Clinton stands in the race. If the race is not all that competitive, then the rules are far less consequential.
Things are less clear on the Republican side which raises the specter of the delegate selection rules influencing the path in which the eventual nominee, if not frontrunner, takes to the nomination. The Democratic rules seem to back South Carolina up and so too do the Republican rules. For starters, South Carolina and the other three carve-out states are allowed by the RNC rules to hold contests as early as a month before the next earliest contest (Rule 16(c)(1)). That is an effective buffer for the four carve-out states in most cases. However, in an instance where the another state has its primary tethered to one of the carve-outs, it provides Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina with little cover. If North Carolina remains anchored to the South Carolina primary, then neither South Carolina nor the other carve-outs can effectively escape the North Carolina primary.
The RNC rules, however, protect the carve-out states and the ideal -- from the party's perspective -- calendar through other means. Like the Democrats, the Republican National Committee also penalizes states that conduct primaries or caucuses before the first Tuesday in March. Unlike the Democrats and unlike the RNC from 2012, the 2016 version sets a more severe timing penalty than simply reducing a state's delegation by half. That 50% penalty was the same one used and enforced in both 2008 and 2012 by the Republican National Committee. Yet, with Florida and Michigan breaking the calendar rules in both 2008 and 2012 and Arizona joining in 2012, the penalty was not effective at deterring all states from those sorts of violations.
The answer for the RNC for 2016 has come in the form of the newly installed super penalty. Instead of a flat 50% penalty, the RNC has opted to reduce violating states' delegations to either 9 or 12 delegates (depending on size) (Rule 17(a)). More than three-quarters of states and territories would face a penalty of 60% or more. The large a state's delegation, the larger the penalty would be.
For a state like North Carolina -- a state that increased the size of its Republican delegation by nearly 20 delegates for 20161 -- to be reduced to 12 delegates would translate to a more than 80% penalty. That is a significantly scaled back delegation that would reshape how candidates campaign in the state. And given that North Carolina allocates its delegates proportionally to candidates based on the statewide vote, such a small delegation may not change the way the candidates approach North Carolina as much as affect decisions over whether to bother with campaigning for a proportional share of 12 delegates.2
Folks in North Carolina are just waking up to the fact that the Tar Heel state will hold an early primary next year. Some are even speculating about what kind of player North Carolina will be in the presidential nomination process. On the county level, there is some concern emerging over the logistics of a February presidential primary.
But very few here in the Tar Heel state are talking about how North Carolina will be penalized by the national party rules if the presidential primary law remains unchanged and the impact that will have on the primary and campaigns' decisions to spend money in a multi-market state for just 12 delegates.
As the North Carolina General Assembly gets down to and continues its work, it is worth watching whether legislators address the primary issue. They are aware of the potential problem. North Carolina Republican National Committeeman, David Lewis, is in the North Carolina House of Representatives. Furthermore, the RNC has expressed confidence to FHQ that this matter would be resolved.
We shall see. The RNC has been good about bringing states in line during the 2016 cycle so far (see Arizona and Florida). But North Carolina could be a real threat to the primary calendar order in 2016. on the one hand, the carve-out states may scramble to schedule around North Carolina and run the risk of breaking the timing rules themselves. On the other hand, due to the tethering of the primary law, the four carve-out states cannot really steer clear of North Carolina. That may mean that the early states and the national parties will lean on the candidates to avoid the Tar Heel state. It could also mean that if the primary law cannot get changed in 2015 during a regular session that ends in July that the state parties will have to save the North Carolina delegate allocation process from itself by switching to later and compliant caucuses to avoid penalty.
That is a few speculative steps down the road though. North Carolina is in a provocative position on the 2016 primary calendar and step one to altering that runs through the state legislature.
Well, that and perhaps people here realizing it is a problem.
--
1 By maintaining a Republican-controlled legislature and winning a second US Senate seat, the governor's mansion and voting for Romney in 2012, North Carolina gained bonus delegates over its Republican share in 2012 (see RNC Rule 14(a)(5-7)). North Carolina's percentage gain in share of delegates from 2012 to 2016 is just shy of 30%.
2 It would actually be a proportionate share of just nine delegates. The three automatic delegates -- the state party chair, the national committeeman and the national committeewoman -- have been unbound and thus their allocation is not dependent upon the results of the primary.
Recent Posts:
Utah Again Linked to Possible Western Regional Primary
SEC Primary Bill Finds Early Support in Mississippi House Committee
Utah Republicans Leaning Toward 2016 Caucuses Over Primary
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Utah Again Linked to Possible Western Regional Primary
FHQ chimed in about the possibility of Utah Republicans shifting from a primary to a caucuses/convention system in 2016 yesterday. But as Bryan Schott at Utah Policy reports, there is maybe another layer to the primary/caucuses story.
Yes, Schott mentions the same tension between a state party perhaps wanting caucuses and a Republican-controlled state government with at least some support for maintaining the primary system for allocating national convention delegates in the 2016 presidential nominations races. He also notes the very same double whammy the Utah primary options face; non-compliant on both ends of the calendar.
The real noteworthy addition to all that though, is that Utah Democrats -- or their chairman, Peter Corroon, anyway -- are supportive of joining a March 22 western regional primary. This is not the first time this idea has come up. Last spring, after the Utah legislative session closed and killed the bill that would have tried to move Utah ahead of Iowa, there was also talk of Utah joining forces with Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico and Wyoming on the same date for a regional primary in 2016. Again, this idea is not new, but it has yet to be pulled off as successfully as southern states managed in 1988. The notion was championed by former Utah governor, Mike Leavitt, as far back as the 1996 cycle (see Busch 2000). The 2000 calendar found the Utah primary sharing an early March date with just Colorado and Wyoming.
But that was as far as it went.
Now, it appears that that option is on the table for 2016. Arizona moved back to March 22 during its 2014 legislative session. And now that date is being discussed in some circles in Utah again. All is quiet in the other states, but that is something to watch as winter transitions into spring this year.
From the Utah perspective, this is another layer, but if the date can get changed -- either the June primary date or most likely the February "Western States Presidential Primary" date -- that may offer added enticement to a Utah Republican Party that may be leaning toward holding caucuses next year. If a state-funded option exists at a point on the calendar that is workable to the state parties, that goes a long way toward keeping the primary going.1
--
1 The thought of Utah Republicans demanding a $50,000 filing fee as a means of paying for the caucuses is probably far-fetched. Schott rightly notes that it will be difficult for the party to command that high a price for caucuses that may or may not be the only game in town on a particular date on the calendar. It is a plan seemingly destined to backfire.
Recent Posts:
SEC Primary Bill Finds Early Support in Mississippi House Committee
Utah Republicans Leaning Toward 2016 Caucuses Over Primary
The 2016 RNC Super Penalty
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Yes, Schott mentions the same tension between a state party perhaps wanting caucuses and a Republican-controlled state government with at least some support for maintaining the primary system for allocating national convention delegates in the 2016 presidential nominations races. He also notes the very same double whammy the Utah primary options face; non-compliant on both ends of the calendar.
The real noteworthy addition to all that though, is that Utah Democrats -- or their chairman, Peter Corroon, anyway -- are supportive of joining a March 22 western regional primary. This is not the first time this idea has come up. Last spring, after the Utah legislative session closed and killed the bill that would have tried to move Utah ahead of Iowa, there was also talk of Utah joining forces with Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico and Wyoming on the same date for a regional primary in 2016. Again, this idea is not new, but it has yet to be pulled off as successfully as southern states managed in 1988. The notion was championed by former Utah governor, Mike Leavitt, as far back as the 1996 cycle (see Busch 2000). The 2000 calendar found the Utah primary sharing an early March date with just Colorado and Wyoming.
But that was as far as it went.
Now, it appears that that option is on the table for 2016. Arizona moved back to March 22 during its 2014 legislative session. And now that date is being discussed in some circles in Utah again. All is quiet in the other states, but that is something to watch as winter transitions into spring this year.
From the Utah perspective, this is another layer, but if the date can get changed -- either the June primary date or most likely the February "Western States Presidential Primary" date -- that may offer added enticement to a Utah Republican Party that may be leaning toward holding caucuses next year. If a state-funded option exists at a point on the calendar that is workable to the state parties, that goes a long way toward keeping the primary going.1
--
1 The thought of Utah Republicans demanding a $50,000 filing fee as a means of paying for the caucuses is probably far-fetched. Schott rightly notes that it will be difficult for the party to command that high a price for caucuses that may or may not be the only game in town on a particular date on the calendar. It is a plan seemingly destined to backfire.
Recent Posts:
SEC Primary Bill Finds Early Support in Mississippi House Committee
Utah Republicans Leaning Toward 2016 Caucuses Over Primary
The 2016 RNC Super Penalty
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Sunday, February 1, 2015
SEC Primary Bill Finds Early Support in Mississippi House Committee
The Mississippi state House version of a bill to shift the Magnolia state presidential primary up a week into the SEC primary slot on March 1 has passed muster at the committee level.
Procedurally in the Mississippi House, once a bill is referred to committee, that committee has two initial jobs. First, it must check that the title of the bill is clear and reflects the changes called for in the legislation. Second, the House committee can offer a recommendation on the ultimate fate of the bill. In the case of HB 933, the Mississippi state House Apportionment and Elections Committee last week recommended that the bill (moving the primary up a week) "do pass" when it comes to the floor for a vote.
This is an incremental step toward a move that Mississippi Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann has said everyone involved in the process is "on board" with.
--
Update (2/4/15): Senate bill passes committee
Update (2/11/15): House and Senate bills pass
Update (3/3/15): House bill dies in committee, Senate bill passes committee
UPDATE (3/11/15): Amended Senate bill passes state House
Recent Posts:
Utah Republicans Leaning Toward 2016 Caucuses Over Primary
The 2016 RNC Super Penalty
Back to the Future in Michigan: Another Attempt to Move Presidential Primary to March
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Procedurally in the Mississippi House, once a bill is referred to committee, that committee has two initial jobs. First, it must check that the title of the bill is clear and reflects the changes called for in the legislation. Second, the House committee can offer a recommendation on the ultimate fate of the bill. In the case of HB 933, the Mississippi state House Apportionment and Elections Committee last week recommended that the bill (moving the primary up a week) "do pass" when it comes to the floor for a vote.
This is an incremental step toward a move that Mississippi Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann has said everyone involved in the process is "on board" with.
--
Update (2/4/15): Senate bill passes committee
Update (2/11/15): House and Senate bills pass
Update (3/3/15): House bill dies in committee, Senate bill passes committee
UPDATE (3/11/15): Amended Senate bill passes state House
Recent Posts:
Utah Republicans Leaning Toward 2016 Caucuses Over Primary
The 2016 RNC Super Penalty
Back to the Future in Michigan: Another Attempt to Move Presidential Primary to March
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Utah Republicans Leaning Toward 2016 Caucuses Over Primary
The Utah state legislature convened this past week, and with that opened the small window in which legislators have to act on decisions regarding the Beehive state position on the 2016 presidential primary calendar. Yes, there are probably other, maybe even more pressing, matters they will deal with. However, where the primary calendar is concerned, Utah is one of those states that could serve as a problem to orderliness with which the calendar finalizes over the course of this year.
Elections law in Utah provides legislators with a number of options with regard to the presidential primary. If they collectively choose to appropriate funds for it, the state could hold what the law calls a Western States Presidential Primary.1 That contest is scheduled for the first Tuesday in February, a date non-compliant with national party rules. Legislators could opt to either fund the contest as is for February, provide the funds but change to a compliant date, or not fund the contest at all. If no appropriations are forthcoming, the state parties can utilize the regular fourth Tuesday in June primary for other offices.2
That the state parties have some recourse in all of this is an important factor to consider here. No party in Utah or elsewhere is forced into using a state-funded primary. Most do because the alternative is putting up party money to pay for party-run primaries or caucuses. Those are resources state parties tend to either not have or want to use elsewhere. There are, however, occasional trade-offs that parties may consider. Often state parties opt for caucuses in lieu of a primary because the state party has less control over the primary electorate than a caucus electorate. Stated slightly differently, state law calls for an open or closed primary when the state party would prefer the opposite: to either contract or expand the electorate (see Meinke, et al. 2006).
This is the position Utah is in to some extent. The parties have the ability to close the primary to just partisans according to the law, but only in a presidential primary. In a regular primary, independents can choose which party's primary in which to participate. There is a conflict between what the law and some in the Republican-controlled state government want and what the consensus within the leadership of the state party desire. Much of this dates back to the quirky caucus/convention system that helped Tea Party-aligned Mike Lee defeat sitting Senator Robert Bennett in the 2010 Republican Senate nomination race in Utah. All told there are factions in the Utah Republican Party that want different things out of the nomination process.
Even though the presidential nomination portion of this is not really wrapped up in the fallout from the 2010 caucuses/convention process, the Utah Republican Party has signaled that it will select and allocate delegates to the 2016 national convention through a caucuses/convention process, opting out of the state-funded presidential primary. The state party can exercise more control over who participates as well as when the precinct caucuses will initiate the process. The latter point makes the state legislative calculus on funding and timing the presidential primary mostly moot.
That does not mean that there will not be changes made to the primary system in the state legislature. In fact, at the same time that Utah Republican Party chairman, James Evans was saying the party would use a caucuses/convention system, Representative Jon Cox (R-Ephraim) was talking about those primary changes. Cox was the legislator who, in 2014, authored and shepherded through the state House a measure to shift the presidential primary voting online and to move that primary ahead of Iowa on the calendar. The bill died in the state Senate, but the idea did not die. Well, the provocative Iowa-challenging part seems to have seen its day pass, but the online voting aspect did not. Cox has a bill in the hopper already concerning online voting and that could serve as a vehicle for changing the non-compliant February date of the presidential primary in Utah (or another bill could be introduced to that effect).
What remains to be seen is whether those changes if passed and signed into law would entice the Utah Republican Party back into the state-funded presidential primary option. The party has not necessarily raised concerns over the date of the primary or online voting (though it seems open to including the latter in its caucuses process). The issue over who can participate remains, not in the presidential nomination process, but in the nomination processes for other offices. The presidential nomination portion is only affected to the extent it occurs simultaneous with other nominations processes.
For the 2016 presidential primary calendar, though, news of potential Utah caucuses adds another variable to the mix, but greatly lowers the odds of Utah being a calendar troublemaker this time around. State parties tend to be more protective of their delegations and most play by the rules as such.
--
1 The law was originally passed in the late 1990s with a regional primary in mind, but the law has never really been exercised as intended. The thought was that other states -- Colorado, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, etc. -- would hold concurrent contests with Utah in much the same way that southern states are planning on a Deep South/SEC primary for 2016. As it happened, Utah ended up going it mostly alone in subsequent cycles. And that is fine under the law. There is no guidance with respect to how many other or what other western states must participate in the Western States Presidential Primary for Utah to be able to participate.
2 Utah Republicans used the June primary in 2012. However, given changes to the RNC delegate selection rules accommodating an earlier national convention, the primary's fourth Tuesday in June date would not be compliant with the rules either. That makes the June primary a less attractive option for the state parties.
Recent Posts:
The 2016 RNC Super Penalty
Back to the Future in Michigan: Another Attempt to Move Presidential Primary to March
Legislation Would Shift Illinois Presidential, Other Primaries from March to June
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Elections law in Utah provides legislators with a number of options with regard to the presidential primary. If they collectively choose to appropriate funds for it, the state could hold what the law calls a Western States Presidential Primary.1 That contest is scheduled for the first Tuesday in February, a date non-compliant with national party rules. Legislators could opt to either fund the contest as is for February, provide the funds but change to a compliant date, or not fund the contest at all. If no appropriations are forthcoming, the state parties can utilize the regular fourth Tuesday in June primary for other offices.2
That the state parties have some recourse in all of this is an important factor to consider here. No party in Utah or elsewhere is forced into using a state-funded primary. Most do because the alternative is putting up party money to pay for party-run primaries or caucuses. Those are resources state parties tend to either not have or want to use elsewhere. There are, however, occasional trade-offs that parties may consider. Often state parties opt for caucuses in lieu of a primary because the state party has less control over the primary electorate than a caucus electorate. Stated slightly differently, state law calls for an open or closed primary when the state party would prefer the opposite: to either contract or expand the electorate (see Meinke, et al. 2006).
This is the position Utah is in to some extent. The parties have the ability to close the primary to just partisans according to the law, but only in a presidential primary. In a regular primary, independents can choose which party's primary in which to participate. There is a conflict between what the law and some in the Republican-controlled state government want and what the consensus within the leadership of the state party desire. Much of this dates back to the quirky caucus/convention system that helped Tea Party-aligned Mike Lee defeat sitting Senator Robert Bennett in the 2010 Republican Senate nomination race in Utah. All told there are factions in the Utah Republican Party that want different things out of the nomination process.
Even though the presidential nomination portion of this is not really wrapped up in the fallout from the 2010 caucuses/convention process, the Utah Republican Party has signaled that it will select and allocate delegates to the 2016 national convention through a caucuses/convention process, opting out of the state-funded presidential primary. The state party can exercise more control over who participates as well as when the precinct caucuses will initiate the process. The latter point makes the state legislative calculus on funding and timing the presidential primary mostly moot.
That does not mean that there will not be changes made to the primary system in the state legislature. In fact, at the same time that Utah Republican Party chairman, James Evans was saying the party would use a caucuses/convention system, Representative Jon Cox (R-Ephraim) was talking about those primary changes. Cox was the legislator who, in 2014, authored and shepherded through the state House a measure to shift the presidential primary voting online and to move that primary ahead of Iowa on the calendar. The bill died in the state Senate, but the idea did not die. Well, the provocative Iowa-challenging part seems to have seen its day pass, but the online voting aspect did not. Cox has a bill in the hopper already concerning online voting and that could serve as a vehicle for changing the non-compliant February date of the presidential primary in Utah (or another bill could be introduced to that effect).
What remains to be seen is whether those changes if passed and signed into law would entice the Utah Republican Party back into the state-funded presidential primary option. The party has not necessarily raised concerns over the date of the primary or online voting (though it seems open to including the latter in its caucuses process). The issue over who can participate remains, not in the presidential nomination process, but in the nomination processes for other offices. The presidential nomination portion is only affected to the extent it occurs simultaneous with other nominations processes.
For the 2016 presidential primary calendar, though, news of potential Utah caucuses adds another variable to the mix, but greatly lowers the odds of Utah being a calendar troublemaker this time around. State parties tend to be more protective of their delegations and most play by the rules as such.
--
1 The law was originally passed in the late 1990s with a regional primary in mind, but the law has never really been exercised as intended. The thought was that other states -- Colorado, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, etc. -- would hold concurrent contests with Utah in much the same way that southern states are planning on a Deep South/SEC primary for 2016. As it happened, Utah ended up going it mostly alone in subsequent cycles. And that is fine under the law. There is no guidance with respect to how many other or what other western states must participate in the Western States Presidential Primary for Utah to be able to participate.
2 Utah Republicans used the June primary in 2012. However, given changes to the RNC delegate selection rules accommodating an earlier national convention, the primary's fourth Tuesday in June date would not be compliant with the rules either. That makes the June primary a less attractive option for the state parties.
Recent Posts:
The 2016 RNC Super Penalty
Back to the Future in Michigan: Another Attempt to Move Presidential Primary to March
Legislation Would Shift Illinois Presidential, Other Primaries from March to June
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Thursday, January 29, 2015
The 2016 RNC Super Penalty
From the 2012 Rules of the Republican Party (the delegate selection rules that will govern the 2016 nomination process):
Now that the 2014 midterms have passed, the Republican National Committee has the data necessary to determine bonus delegates and thus the size of each state delegation.1 A firmer sense of the size of each delegation (via The Green Papers), in turn, provides the extent to which the super penalty would affect each state if a decision was made on the state level to break the rules prohibiting primaries or caucuses before the first Tuesday in March (March 1, 2016).2
Here is the percentage of the delegation lost if each state violated the super penalty (More below the figure):
With the exception of Delaware, Vermont and the four smallest territories, all states have a greater than 50% penalty for a delegate selection event scheduled before March 1. And even if, say, Delaware or Vermont decided to roll the dice and go rogue, the combination of nine delegates in Democratic Party-dominated states would likely not prove attractive to the candidates. Of course, that would assumes that those Democratic state governments would move the primaries into earlier and non-compliant calendar positions in the first place.
As the delegations grow in size, the effect of the penalty increases. States with delegations larger than 60 delegates would face an over 80% reduction in possibly being non-compliant. North Carolina, for example, moved up the list since our earliest look at the original super penalty. The state is now under unified Republican control and has gained bonuses as a result. But those in the Republican majorities on the state level also opted to separate the presidential primary from those for state and local offices and tether that presidential primary to the (likely February) primary in South Carolina. That means the Tar Heel state is currently staring down a substantial 83% reduction to their full 71 member delegation (tied for sixth largest delegation).
Past rogue states have already disarmed. Florida moved back. Arizona moved back. Michigan looks to be moving back. All moved after the original super penalty came out of the 2012 Republican National Convention in Tampa. Other states with February contests (New York) or ties to February contests (Colorado, Minnesota, Utah) have either moved back in the past (and are likely to do so again) or have options that allow them to avoid the problems attendant to non-compliant contests.
Upping the penalty seems to be having the desired effect from the RNC perspective.
...but it is not all the way there. All eyes on North Carolina.
--
1 Those bonuses -- determined by the guidelines in Rule 14(a)(5-7) -- are based on Republican electoral votes in the previous presidential election and Republicans' hold on US House and Senate positions, governors seats and state legislative control. Basically, the more Republican control there is in a state, the more bonus delegates are added to a state's at-large delegate pool.
2 This penalty does not apply to the carve-out states unless any of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and/or South Carolina holds a contest more than a month before the next earliest, non-carve-out state.
Recent Posts:
Back to the Future in Michigan: Another Attempt to Move Presidential Primary to March
Legislation Would Shift Illinois Presidential, Other Primaries from March to June
The End of the New Hampshire Primary? ...by Death Penalty?
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Rule 17(a): If any state or state Republican Party violates Rule No. 16(c)(2), the number of delegates and the number of alternate delegates to the national convention from that state shall each be reduced by fifty percent (50%). Any sum presenting a fraction shall be decreased to the next whole number. No delegation shall be reduced to less than two (2) delegates and a corresponding number of alternate delegates. If any state or state Republican Party violates Rule No. 16(c)(1) of The Rules of the Republican Party the number of delegates to the national convention shall be reduced for those states with 30 or more total delegates to nine (9) plus the members of the Republican National Committee from that state, and for those sates with 29 or fewer total delegates to six (6) plus the members of the Republican National Committee from that state. The corresponding alternate delegates shall also be reduced accordingly.The second half of that rule (bolded by FHQ for emphasis) describes the so-called super penalty to be levied on states that violate the timing rules laid out in Rule 16(c)(1). The reality is that the penalty is there to prevent states from doing that; going rouge. Instead of the flat 50% delegation reduction used in 2012, the RNC will shrink rogue delegations to 12 total delegates (in states originally with 30 or more delegates) and to 9 total delegates (in states with 29 or fewer delegates) in 2016. The party has traded that flat rate of reduction to a set point of reduction that places an increasing penalty on states as their delegations grow in size.
Now that the 2014 midterms have passed, the Republican National Committee has the data necessary to determine bonus delegates and thus the size of each state delegation.1 A firmer sense of the size of each delegation (via The Green Papers), in turn, provides the extent to which the super penalty would affect each state if a decision was made on the state level to break the rules prohibiting primaries or caucuses before the first Tuesday in March (March 1, 2016).2
Here is the percentage of the delegation lost if each state violated the super penalty (More below the figure):
As the delegations grow in size, the effect of the penalty increases. States with delegations larger than 60 delegates would face an over 80% reduction in possibly being non-compliant. North Carolina, for example, moved up the list since our earliest look at the original super penalty. The state is now under unified Republican control and has gained bonuses as a result. But those in the Republican majorities on the state level also opted to separate the presidential primary from those for state and local offices and tether that presidential primary to the (likely February) primary in South Carolina. That means the Tar Heel state is currently staring down a substantial 83% reduction to their full 71 member delegation (tied for sixth largest delegation).
Past rogue states have already disarmed. Florida moved back. Arizona moved back. Michigan looks to be moving back. All moved after the original super penalty came out of the 2012 Republican National Convention in Tampa. Other states with February contests (New York) or ties to February contests (Colorado, Minnesota, Utah) have either moved back in the past (and are likely to do so again) or have options that allow them to avoid the problems attendant to non-compliant contests.
Upping the penalty seems to be having the desired effect from the RNC perspective.
...but it is not all the way there. All eyes on North Carolina.
--
1 Those bonuses -- determined by the guidelines in Rule 14(a)(5-7) -- are based on Republican electoral votes in the previous presidential election and Republicans' hold on US House and Senate positions, governors seats and state legislative control. Basically, the more Republican control there is in a state, the more bonus delegates are added to a state's at-large delegate pool.
2 This penalty does not apply to the carve-out states unless any of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and/or South Carolina holds a contest more than a month before the next earliest, non-carve-out state.
Recent Posts:
Back to the Future in Michigan: Another Attempt to Move Presidential Primary to March
Legislation Would Shift Illinois Presidential, Other Primaries from March to June
The End of the New Hampshire Primary? ...by Death Penalty?
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)